Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Good idea ... what can possibly go wrong?

A new Tea Party group, Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots, has grown quickly since being launched last month by an active duty Marine Corps sergeant. The group, which vows to "stand up on the very soil we defended to preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government," currently has over 400 members, who have signed up through its Facebook page, though many are not active duty military. And it has close ties to the broader Tea Party movement.

"People in the military need to be heard," the group's prime organizer, Gary Stein -- a Marine Corps sergeant stationed at Camp Pendleton in southern California -- told TPMmuckraker in an interview. "Our opinions do count."

I really like this part:

Many people in the military "feel like they can't speak out against Obama or Congress," said Stein. "The armed forces should have a little bit more say than we think we do," he said...

In promoting the Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots, Stein has raised the possibility of disobeying presidential orders.

Good thinking, Gary. As a Marine on active duty, why don't you exercise your God-given right to decide which military orders you'd rather take a pass on? Let us know how that works out. We'll be right here.

20 comments:

I'm sure someone out there has a better recollection than I, but wasn't there a bit of a furor when a soldier 'went public' about not wanting to go to Iraq because he stated it was an 'illegal war' or somesuch...My bet would be that many of these same teabaggers that want army personnel to disobey orders now from Obama were all 'Hey, That's Dubya--your preznit, and he says, 'Go to Iraq!--get goin'!!!!'

Let's not forget that a lot of being a conservative is about authority, in its various forms, such as The Bible, The Constitution, The Monarchy, The Prime Minister, or, as His Holiness keeps reminding us, Holy Mother the Church. To be satisfying to conservatives, authority has to be authentic, with a lineage to times immemorial. The current threat to the sacred traditions of marine corpse is teh gay. If you were a marine facing this kind of a threat, you'd start teabagging yourself.

Always with the free markets. Yes, I'm sure the diversion of 53% of the USA's federal budget to industrial subsidies and makework projects for losers like themselves (otherwise known as 'military spending') represents the best of free market principles.

Gawd, I hope our squabbling parliamentarians have met in a secret bunker somewhere to make sure Canada's ready to seal the borders when the time comes. If only to prevent Big Daddy from rolling out the welcome mat.

Assuming you are serious (something I am not sure frankly because of how odd I find the comment in this context) militaries do not function as a democracy, they are inherently anti-democratic in nature. That is the point of a tight knit top down command structure where significant penalties attach to disregarding any and all lawful orders regardless of the source. Democratic societies need such militaries to survive in the world as it is, and one of the things soldiers understand (or certainly should understand when they volunteer) is that they are giving up the right to act in a political manner in any public manner (they can still vote for whomever they want, fund who they want so long as they do not do so in a manner which brings their military affiliation into the equation) when they swear their oaths.

What this soldier is suggesting is something that can and should earn him significant disciplinary action, up to a full court martial because of how inherently corrosive it is to proper chain of command discipline. If he wants to be active in a political manner beyond the proscribed limits allowed to active duty soldiers then he needs to decide to leave the military, it is that simple. Arguably he is encouraging sedition and treason when he suggests soldiers should not follow the orders of their commander in chief (that is not an empty title where military are concerned you know).

No, your comment makes no sense in this context, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how any military in a democratic society works and indeed how it has to work (again, assuming it was made in good faith, if not well then that speaks for itself). A soldier on active duty cannot be permitted to be a partisan of any party or ideology publicly, the most they can do is show it through financial contributions and their own votes. Once they are no longer active duty and are veterans then they can trade on their military credentials politically all they like, but not while they are active service, it is simply too corrosive to the proper functioning of any military service, something that has been discussed time and time again in both military and non-military circles that actually deal with issues surrounding military service and roles within a democratic society.

I think Chasman is talking about coups. Not the renaming of "democratically elected MPs forming a coalition" now branded a coup, but the real coup d'etat where the government is overthrown, a (usually military) dictatorship installed and the previous government leaders executed after a tribunal presided over by the new government.

Listen, I really don't trust the man, but I'd be more than happy to trade him for our bozo. I think they'd all love Stevie down there, and short of electing Stockwell Day again, we couldn't possibly do any worse.

My mistake, I apologize for the misunderstanding there Chasman, once ls pointed out the coups argument aspect I saw what I was missing. I am sorry I was so sensitive on this topic, over the years I have seen a lot of garbage regarding military roles in our society especially from the right/far right and it has left me a bit overly sensitive about it. The recent business with Afghan detainees and the way the CPCers have used the reputation and honour of the military as a tool of defence (while staining that honour in the process even further by using it in a dishonourable manner to defend fishonourable conduct) has only made that worse in me, as I have personal reasons for taking such fairly seriously. So this led to my misunderstanding your point, as well I suspect my lengthy absence left me unfamiliar with many names and their positions previously written and therefore easier for me to misread their stances as I am returning.

I hope you forgive this mistake of mine, it was unintentional and I hope this apology and explanation helps you to understand how I could make such an error in the manner I did.

Thanks again liberal supporter for pointing out what I should have seen and missed, I am a bit rusty after all it has been a while.

ls: Nice to be back, if still on a limited basis, thanks for the greetings. Expect to see me here and there as I slowly return to political commenting.

either way, he balked at GWB's orders and future teabaggers got their knickers in a knot... now that the proverbial shoe's on the other foot, what, with a democratic president--now soldiers should absolutely disobey the orders of the president...See, IOKIYATBer

Glad to hear it. Isn't it amazing how much easier things are when people are able to actually apologize for making a mistake instead of going to absurd lengths to appear as if they did not and that any error was on the other side?

(not so subtle dig at our current government and its many defenders online and offline, as well as one in particular entity who fell for the most obvious trap I've seen yet at this blog a few days ago)

"he balked at GWB's orders and future teabaggers got their knickers in a knot..."

ah, we're talking about two different cases. i recall the young man to whom you refer, but don't recall his name. maj kook was the birfer who asked for deployment, then balked while offering his flimsy excuse about the executive order not being legit. you know, kenya, birf certificates, barry soetoro, chemically imbalanced lawyers, etc.